Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
round. it has a rugged ability, meant for a combat or environment that one would be placed in facing adversaries, human beings, people. that weapon can be retrofitted enhanceth other devices to your offensive capability. the weapon itself has features to adjusted, optics sites, for example, that can cost hundreds of dollars and i have shot this weapon many times. it would enhance our capability in various tactical maneuvers whether it is from the shoulder or the hip or whether you choose to spray fire the weapon or individually shoot from the shoulder. the optic sites are amazing. the technology advances that weapon as -- that weapon is the weapon of our time. that is where we find ourselves today and certainly, i believe, is meant for the battlefield and a public safety environment only. >> thank you. mr. chairman, before i yield my time, i would like to submit testimony of maya ronman who is here today lost her father in a shooting in september in minneapolis. i would like unanimous consent to submit your testimony for the record. >> as we indicated earlier, there will be other sta
these decisions have on the environment that the u.s. is in. for most of history, we have maintained a strong military, not so that we can fight, but so that we can not fight. the other. that time made that is important -- the other point that tom made is to understand what is involved in military operations. there is a piece on the web that explains exactly what it is we can do with the troops we have at the president makes critical decisions about afghanistan. it is not just about bureaucrats in d.c.. fighting a war is a big logistical exercise. do you does want to talk about that and several surrounding decisions? >> we have become very accustomed to throwing around numbers of troops, and people have gotten way too comfortable with pulling numbers out of the air and discussing them as though they were serious. the effect of that is that very few americans actually understand that there is a method for figuring out how many troops are actually needed to accomplish something. when the recommendation comes from a military commander, this cannot just, as this white house seems to think, the co
? in 1992, you had the riots in los angeles. you could find yourself in a lawless environment in this country. the story was about a place called koreatown. there are marauding gangs going through the area burning stores, looting and robbing. the vice-president said in response to me, he said, no, you would be better off with a 12 gauge shotgun. that is his opinion, and i respect it. i have an ar-15 at home and i have not hurt anybody and i do not intend to, but i would be better off protecting my family if there was law-and-order breakdown in my neighborhood. i do not think that makes me an unreasonable person. mr. trotter when you say you speak on behalf of millions of women out there who believe an ar-15 makes them safer, there were a lot of giggles in the room, and that explains the dilemma. the people who were giggling were saying to you, that is crazy. nobody i know thinks that way. which reminds me of the harvard professor who said i cannot believe mcgovern lost. everyone i knew voted for him. i bet there are people on our side that cannot believe obama won because ever
the right environment is the most important. how we can create this environment today with this kind of unstability, we need political stability. we need peace. we have struggle between the palestinians and israelis and egypt. we have to talk about it and be very frank to see how we can get to the end of this. for this reason, yes, frankly speaking i'm not very optimistic about all today. if i ask anyone what you want me to talk to about, talk about democracy, freedom, transparency, governments, rulers. let us work for this and this is very important. >> let me ask --, let me ask someone who has worked with some of these institutions under the most ex-rd nary conditions. you have helped functioning institution in the west bank. you created an economy that created extraordinary growth over the last three years and you've done it under very adverse circumstances. so what would be your advice to people trying to build these institutions? >> thank you. honestly i continue to the effort help the institutions not just myself and to get ready for the emergence of fully independent and state
of the political parties. i worry about the environment and all kinds of things, but the reality -- reliability of the u.s. debt, not at all. i am worried about the social and political stability of the world. a large part of europe that is depressioneriencing great levels of unemployment. and how long can we sustain u stable democratic system when 60 percent of the young people are out of work? that is the concern in europe right now. host: the twitter question touches on this. also, are there any models in europe that are succeeding? guest: if you look at sweden has handled this very well. the excess of welfare state is the problem. the biggest welfare state in the world and has driven through the crisis beautifully. my favorite, the little economy that could, iceland. they were supposed to turn into a smoking whole, but they broke their rules. they did not bail out the bankers. they were willing to let the currency to value. they were willing to let there be controls. it has a lower and a plumber rate than we do right now. -- unemployment rate than we do right now. britain is interesting. wh
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5